A Plea for Dionysian Consciousness by Samuel Bucker

Many philosophers concerning themselves with the notion of happiness, and the acquirement of such, have come to the general agreement that a personal emphasis on reason is vital. Reason allows us to soberly avoid negative emotions, as well as plan coming events that will prove beneficial. However, reason can lead us to unavoidable and unpleasant conclusions. The pursuit of Truth necessitates that we accepts certain unpleasantness, as well as incorporate propositions that may negate life. Reason gives us an appreciation of the meaningless of existence, but it doesn't provide an opportunity to move past this. In fact, reason raises this concern above all else. When reflecting on one's existence, one distorts the Truth out of the psychological and physiological inability to obtain pure, disinterested, objective truth. For this reason it can be recommended that one engage in his own truth making when analyzing his self. By using creative and artistic powers we can distort our own history to create one that facilitates the will to life. A distorted view of reality, the unreason, can bring joy to our lives and meaning to our existence that would be excluded with strict adherence to reason.

Being is, in reality, a connected series of has-beens. When we finally come to death we understand the termination of our being, and thus conclude that being is something that was. The past is our being. In this way, we have the power to alter our own beings through our interpretation of our personal history.

Nietzsche in his Birth of Tragedy states:

There is an ancient story that king Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without capturing him. When at last he fell into his hands, the king asked what was best of all and most desirable for man. Fixed and immovable, the demon remained silent till at last, forced by the king, he broke out with shrill laughter into these words: "Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach : not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die."

It is this predicament that reason leads us into: life is misery and we may as well end it as soon as possible. The pursuit of truth is taken as a moral commandment from society. Those who engage in lies are ostracized. But this is because the 'liar' is a liar in the relationship to society. The public liar is selfish and attempts to further his own ends at the expense of others through his lies. The liar is one who challenges the notions of truth held by society. But what is truth? If it is based on the ability to uphold correspondence with others, truth is simply a social construct that we must abide by - at the risk of being labelled a liar if we do not.  In one's personal, internal life - the life that does not affect others, at least not directly but only indirectly through the affects that it has on the person's will and behavior - he has the ability to alter his interpretation of his experience. Every time one recalls a memory this memory is recreated. A memory therefor is an inaccurate representation of the original perception of the experience he submitted to. These inaccuracies, or distortions, come from a multiplicity of factors - internal and external. Considering the fact that memory is wrong, why not alter the memory to personal benefit? If to recall a memory in one way leads to a affirmation of the will to life, why deny it in favour of an interpretation that leads to life's denial? I say we should be the artist of our own being. We should revel in the drunk interpretation and shutdown the sober, life denying one.

The pursuit of truth leaves us trapped between the two paradigms that purport to be its arbiters. Science rejects spirituality and leaves us to the dark abyss of existence. Religion, on the other hand, demands absolute resignation to an illogical doctrine. Only in the self itself are we to find an alternative; the creation of the 'truth' that leads to a life affirming state of being.

Human life without art is a mistake. An aesthetically void existence is one where man is a simple compound of needs that are to be satisfied. Once these needs are satisfied he is subjected to a perpetual state of boredom until new needs arise. Boredom is just the affirmation of the emptiness of life. Even our seemingly wholesome desire to birth a family is birthed from the stranglehold of necessity and desire to escape boredom. We have a psychological need to seek out sex, and are subjected to intense pleasures during copulation. If one were to have a sober view of sex and the subsequent birth of a new life, would they then engage in the activity? No, they do so because they are slaves of the passions. It is only when the will is brought to the forefront, and we interact with reality in some way, that we transcend an existence based on needs and escape the looming staticity of boredom. Art is the most direct way of interacting with reality; we shape reality without restriction. Music is the only art form void of reference. Reference ties us to reality. No-reference enables us to create our own, personal world. Music is the pure engagement of will in reality. By engaging with reality on our own terms, in contrast to simply doing what we must out of necessity due to the physiological inveigle of Perseverance, we give life meaning. We must make a symphony out of our history.

The pursuit of truth and commitment to reason commits one to accept a notion of the self and reality that is life denying. By artistically interpreting our lives and engaging our will in reality, we transcend doldrum and affirm life. Life is not a motion picture that we are to sit back and watch; and recall prior scenes with perfect clarity. We are to alter the course of our lives through engagement, and alter the recollection of the past to improve the whole. What is the pursuit of truth but the pursuit towards a better life?

Samuel Bucker
Fucked up on 'shrooms somewhere in the Central Okanagan
May 2014

Reading Genesis by Andrew Anson

I've never had much exposure to the Bible. I was raised in a predominately atheist house-hold; although that word was never used. My mother went through a few phases of religion leaning, and would drag my father and us children to church on Sunday. These phases would last a couple months; up until she decided to submit to our pleas (my father included) that church was awful. I didn't enjoy it simply because it was boring. I had no rejection in principal. I think I could find that now; this essay won't go into those details though. My social circle was also very non-religious, expounding only those religious preachings that are so common place in society they have lost their direct link to religion. Like many social norms, the origin becomes irrelevant - we simply live with them and only contemplative people, or those with specific goals in mind, chose to challenge them to the chagrin of the passive folks who want to justify their behavior through appeal to the authority of time. The secular public school system also introduced to me no formal teachings of religion, only to the veiled, religious affected philosophies of certain school teachers. So as a rational man, steeped in a constant diet of a society affected by multiple ideologies, I now approach the first book of the Bible. Perhaps I should have taken the advice of St. Augustine, who claimed that the Bible should be read beyond its literal meaning, and sought the assistance of a professional.

It's interesting to read the source after being exposed to the effects of the Bible all of my life. It's not often we get the opportunity to approach the source of such an affection. Experiencing the stories that have been re-told and bastardized in various media in their accepted form is an elucidating experience. The various quotes lifted from the book, that we see everyday, are interesting to see in context - many of which are taken completely out of context, and thus distorted.

One such quote I saw recently in a church read, lovingly, "Walk about the land through its length and its breadth". In context though, God gave Abram (later renamed Abraham) the land (which was already inhabited, so God usurped the land) for him and his seed, God's chosen people. The irony is readily apparent. The pleasant church goer who plastered that quote on the wall didn't understand that if I'm not of Abraham's seed, I have no right to be on that land at all. I can't walk about the land because its all private property, and the last time I did that I got physically assaulted (in the Bible, God would probably get me killed). Ultimately, I'm stuck walking around my apartment, which is only mine temporarily and as long as I continue to make rent payments. I suppose this interpretation of the quote comes off as cynical, but it's hard not to be. The early followers of this new religion reveled in their being God's favorites. Judaism is exclusionary in nature. I speculate that this was a source of the contention that has brought them so much hatred over the centuries. Just as the teacher's favourite in the classroom is bullied by his classmates, the Jews were bullied by their religious opponents.

The Jews declared themselves different from the dirty desert dwellers (and on par with the clean Egyptians) by instituting a doctrine of circumcision. Circumcision, the practice of cutting off a piece of a child's penis, is given in Genesis as a commandment of God. If I don't become circumcised, God says I "shall be cut off from [my] people (but not the tip of my penis)". My parents, through the nonact of avoiding my circumcision, have condemned me to isolation. Perhaps this is why I am unable to walk the lands freely.

Genesis places a lot of significance on continuing your family line. There is, however, not much emphasis placed on the value of family in itself; rather the emphasis is that the family is a possession and the sons and daughters are your continuation. Abraham is extremely stressed over not having a son, and impregnates his slave girl at the risk of ruining his marriage. He ultimately pleas to God, whom grants Abraham's wife (who no longer has womanly flows at her 90 years of age) a pregnancy. Yes, the son, poor Isaac had to suckle 90 year old nipples. In another example of the importance of the continuation of the family line, the two daughter's of Lot, desperate to have children, get Lot drunk and have sex with him. This focus on the family is consistent with the Bible's religious focus on property. In order to maintain hold on property one must have a family to pass it down to. God isn't concerned with the incest and the sex with slave girls, but he is concerned with Abimelech taking a married woman, but only to the extent that a married woman is someone else's property. God also takes no issue with Abraham owning slaves, firmly suggesting that Abraham mutilate their penises.

The Abraham sacrificing his son story is possibly the most important story in Genesis. Faith occurs when you give resignation, absolute resignation, to God. Abraham is either a murderer or a hero of faith. Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling analyzes this story in an interesting and rewarding way. It gives a meta-commentary to the story that the Bible is sorely lacking. The Bible gives a very literal account of the stories; this supports St. Augustine's assertion that one must have outside help to understand the book. This outside help, however, would allow the ability for people to distort the 'truths' of the Bible.

God, as an abstract concept, is used numerous times by characters in Genesis to achieve their selfish ends. The name of God is used by Jacob to deceive his father Isaac into blessing him instead of the brother Esau. Later, the name of God is used to make sure Jacob doesn't "take any wives besides [Laban's] daughters". Laban states, "though no one else is present, remember, God is witness between you and me! May the Lord look out between you and me when we are out of each other's site". This is one of the reasons, I wager, religion was used by statesmen and property owners: it allows laws to perpetuate without surveillance (something that is not as relevant modern times, as statesmen have infrastructures like the NSA).

I remember when I was a teenager I fell into depression; the type of depression that most teenagers must go through, and I sought out help in a few places. One of the places that I was going to turn to was religion. I picked up the Bible, but was uninterested in the creation myth so I put it away. And I'm glad I did as I don't believe that reading this would have helped me see value in existence in any way. I learned that one must submit to a being more powerful than one's self; that I must be initiated through bodily mutilation; I must never question its authority; and that I must spread my seed in order to maintain and grow the kingdom of my possessions. The surface of the story of Genesis and my non-literal interpretations reveal nothing that is useful; it contains no moral guidance, no advice, and no justification for life. Perhaps, it is as St. Augustine asserts; we must seek guidance in experts to understand the significance of the stories; or, perhaps, I end up regretfully agreeing with Richard Dawkins who claimed of the Bible: "Why bother with it?". This statement, given during a TV show panel discussion, was responded with indignant cries from the other panel members and the studio audience. But, if one must seek assistance in interpretation, one must submit to the authority of antiquity and the genesis of knowledge will never be revealed. 

Andrew Anson
Still seeking a meaning to being in Kelowna, BC
June, 2014

The Ethical Duties of "Corporations" by Kirk Jackson

A corporation, dealing with it as an abstract entity, has two main duties: the first, to seek a profit; the second, to obey the law. The second duty is problematic with large corporations due to various phenomena. Firstly, corporations have the ability to bypass the law when paying the fines associated with their infractions is lesser than the benefit of breaking the law. Secondly, a large corporations have an influence on the law, either through the importance to the economy by its size, or its political ties concerning key employees and shareholders directly holding important government positions or possessing the ability to affect those who do. Because corporations can break the law (or alter it, which is, in effect, the same thing) moral philosophers deem it important to draw up an ethical system to govern corporations.

Deontology is a normative ethical principle that sets out to judge one’s actions based on its adherence to a set of guidelines or rules. It is a duty based ethical system. This is strongly contrasted to consequentialist ethical principle such as utilitarianism where the outcome is the basis for judgment. Kant utilizes deontology to create his ethical system; he states that a man must act in a morally right way and from duty, and that the consequences of the actions do not make the actions right or wrong but rather the intent and motives of the man who does the action. In opposition to utilitarianism because Kant does not believe that morality should be given a purpose outside of itself. A moral act is moral regardless of the consequences.

Kant does not encourage acting in order to obtain happiness, as is one of the founding guidelines of utilitarianism. Acting upon a categorical imperative is more fundamental than acting in order to achieve happiness. However, Kant also said, “A man even has an indirect duty to seek happiness. The more he is troubled by the burdens of anxiety and need, the more he may be tempted to fail in his duty. Even apart from duty, everyone has the most fundamental urge to be happy, since the idea of happiness more or less sums up in our minds the satisfaction of all our desires, cares, and needs.”

Kantian Deontology which is often summarized with the following statement by Kant: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”. Kant did not intend to say that one should never be used as a means to end but that one should never be exclusively a means to an end.

Kant went further to claim that a party is not necessarily being ethical if they are only doing the right thing out of prudence. The essence of morality according to Kant is derived not from what the duty may have prescribed but from the concept of law (not to be confused with a nation’s law). In today’s highly regulated business environment this has a large impact. Many corporations, it may be assumed in example, only act in an outcome that is considered ethical because they are forced to by forces such as the law. If it does not act this way it may be fined, leading to less profit than acting in accordance to the law (atleast this is one of the purposes of fines, it may appear to some that the fines are insufficient to produce the best possible outcome for society). In Kantian ethics this behavior is deemed reprehensible. A corporation should act ethical out of duty and obligation not simply because it is prudent to do so. Kant worries more about the motives than the consequences. In the increasing globalization of large corporation this idea takes on an even greater weight. Many developing countries still do not have the legal infrastructure necessary to prevent unethical corporations from taking advantage and its citizens are left to the moral whims of corporations.

This subject takes us to Kant’s categorical imperative. He states it as follows, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” A corporation should not take advantage of consumers of developing nations because that would make for a lousy imperative. Kant believed that the man should act as if the principle were to be set as a law in the “kingdom of ends”.

The categorical imperative gives us a necessary but not sufficient criterion of virtue. For example one of Kant’s categorical imperatives is to not commit suicide. He offers no reasons as to why one should not commit suicide. In order to practically use the categorical imperative one must look at the consequences of the actions undertaken. Kantian ethics has been criticized for not providing a concrete application in various ethical dilemmas. For example, I jump into my car in the morning to go to work, but if everyone in the world were to do the same thing the Earth would choke to death; so should I not drive my car to work? Most people may be able to accept the former imperative; that of treating man as the ends and not merely the means; this could be taken as a form of human rights put into ethical law, but many circumstances require a more rigorous ethical platform.

I stated earlier that Kantian ethics has its foundation in the idea that ethics is based on adhering to a set of obligations and duties. But where do these duties come from? Do they come from the state? That’s hardly a satisfactory answer as ethics would be highly subjective to time and culture. Do they come from a greater power? In this modern business environment of numerous different religious beliefs it is hardly prudent for society to base its ethics on the guidelines associated with a divine creator. Some philosophers defend the view that a common morality exists and is the foundation of all theories of morality. This could explain why people accept Kant’s statement of treating people not exclusively as means to an end. Modern biochemical science has attempted to isolate a brain chemical that scientifically explains this phenomenon of human compassion. These finding may have a drastic impact on theories of common morality. Many ethical dilemmas are simply caused by differing interpretations of the event and not so of the principles governing the conclusion.

Kantian ethics also raises numerous questions about the ethical treatment of things outside of human kind. What kind of treatment to lesser creatures such as dogs, cattle, chickens etc. deserve? How should humans treat Earth and nature? Using Kant’s categorical imperative could possibly provide numerous divergent and impractical answers.

Modern thought places much more emphasis on empirical facts and purports that very little can be proved a priori. This poses a problem when a society attempts to convince a corporation to act ethically and not simply by the law. Ultimately, however, it is up to society to define what it believes is ethical and have these beliefs reflected in law. These ethical laws provide the concrete framework for corporations to follow that is lacking in Kantian ethics. Perhaps, all we can expect of corporations is for them to be prudent. A corporation has a duty to its shareholders to deliver a profit, and to society to operate within the boundaries of law. For example, a corporation treats it employees ethically because (a) its the law and (b) it has a positive effect on the bottom line.

I was surprised when I first heard the idea that corporations are not affected by Kantian ethics because they are not technically humans, although legally defined as a separate legal entity. I put corporation in quotations in the title of this post to highlight that a corporation is not a thing in the world but a construct of human relations.

Humans within a corporation may be completely indifferent to the actions of the corporation. For example, I worked at a casino a few years ago. I felt that the casino was taking advantage of many gambling addicts. But, I wasn't the casino. I wasn't in charge. So I just let it go. However, a corporation is people and people need to be aware of their actions, regardless of their orders. A member of a corporation is not absolved from the ethical implications of his actions simply because he was following orders. The "blame", if you wish to call it that, falls upon all members involved. A corporation involved in ethical decision making needs to remove its veil and the people involved need to truly feel involved in the actions undertaken. When a corporation does something unethical, there needs to be real responsibility by all the people involved from the board of directors and CEO who set the broader strategy, to the people involved in the implementation of the actions, and even to the members of government who need to set appropriate laws.

At the end of the business day we all go home to our families and friends and we would do well to not lose touch with our individual humanity and empathy while at work. Profits and money are meaningless without the people that we love (especially considering our fiduciary monetary system relies on others). If we wish to enjoy the care and love of our family, we must also enable others to do the same; meaning we should not abuse our corporate power. Obeying the Kantian maxim of treating people not merely as means to an end will have a positive societal, economic and, individual impact. Kantian ethics does not provide a fully applicable ethical principle to be used in all business situations but it is useful in helping us focus on the most important thing: people.

Kirk Jackson
Admitting that this blog is created by people in Kelowna, BC
October 8, 2013

Property Rights versus Economic Equality by Isaac Snow

Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of the goods in a society. Like all discussions on a topic concerning justice, there are numerous basic stances on what qualifies as a just distribution. John Rawls approaches the concept of distributive justice from an egalitarian point of view. A strict egalitarian notion of distributive justice would have everyone in society have the same level of material goods and services. Rawls distinguishes himself from this stance by introducing his 'difference principle', He contends that any just conception of freedom is one that would be agreed upon and accepted by everyone from a fair position. This conception of freedom would theoretically be developed in the concept Rawl’s introduces as the 'original position'. The concept states that the initial negotiations of society's distributions would happen behind a veil of ignorance. Meaning the negotiators, including all in the society, would not be aware of their own individual position. In the end the principle of justice settled upon would be fair. This theory requires that individuals that are in a well-off position agree to a distributive rule that may not be in their individual favor. Rawls believes that a society is well ordered when members of the society agree on and know the principles of social justice and the institutions in the society satisfy these principles.

Rawls’ distribution theory helps to maximize the position if the most disadvantaged. A redistribution is considered just when it would help to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged. Rawls allows inequalities to the extent that the inequalities make the least advantaged better off then they would be under a strict egalitarian system. This makes the assumption that the possibility of earning greater income gives the incentive to the individual to put forth greater productive effort that he wouldn't under a strict egalitarian system.

Another American philosopher Robert Nozick, in contrast to Rawls, begins his theory of distributive justice from a libertarian stance and proposes what he calls the 'entitlement theory'. The entitlement theory states that a just situation would allow a person to hold property that he has lawful entitlement to and transfer it at his discretion with no outside interference. This stance necessarily conflicts with Rawls as it would be unjust under the Nozick system to take from the rich and give to the poor. Nozick holds that property rights are non-negotiable and an individual’s personal liberty makes state policies of redistribution illegitimate.

Rawls introduces two principles of justice. The first is liberty wherein each person has a right to the extensive schemes of standard civil liberties such as freedom of speech and voting rights. The second principle is the difference principle. This second principle has less priority than the first. The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities need to meet two conditions. They must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantages and be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair opportunity. The difference principle is a maxi-min principle and a legitimate constraint on the liberty principle.

Rawls does take into account the economists notion of incentive. The overall economic wealth of a society would be reduced – and therefore the worst off left even worse off – if incentives are taken away. Inequalities can constitute incentives that increase the overall economic pie can make everyone better off. Rawls states that society must redistribute income up to the point where the wealth of the representative poorest individual is maximized. Rawls makes a few statements concerning redistribution. He believes that society should equalize the prospects of those whom were not born in to wealthy families by redistributing the undeserved gain of children of rich families. Rawls wants to try to equalize the inequalities created by society and historical circumstances. Rawls also does not see the reason to allow distribution of wealth to be allowed by natural endowments. A man’s natural endowments are not considered his own property, but that of society’s. Rawls subscribes to the Kantian theory of equality in moral dignity. Nozick as well agrees with these Kantian ideas. Rawls’ Kantian theories help to prevent the individual ignorance of utilitarian principles but also prevents libertarianism’s inability to account for arbitrary inequalities of fortune. Rawls’ goal is to put individuals in the position they would have been in if not for undeserved circumstances. Rawls contends that his theories are political and not metaphysical in that the theories do not require agreements in morality. His theories demand democracy and prior agreement – so that disagreements are resolved not by force.

Nozick approaches property rights from a different point of view than Rawls. This difference is the main elements of the two philosophers’ disagreement. Rawls’ theories include a personal property right that is defended in terms of moral capacities and self-respect. Nozick approaches property rights from a libertarian point of view that is similar to the classical liberalism of John Locke but diverts on a few conclusions. Nozick believes that the distribution of goods is just if brought about by a free exchange among consenting adults and from a just starting position. He argues that the term distributive justice is inappropriate as there is no central distribution and all distribution was made by individual decisions. This remains just even in the face of large inequalities that may arise from the process. Nozick argues that property rights are non-negotiable and that personal liberty makes state policies of redistribution illegitimate; whereas Rawls sees no reason why the greater gains of some shouldn’t compensate for the lesser losses of others. Differences in wealth are mostly due to arbitrary matters and are not justified. Nozick fears a reduction of wealth creation that could result from a coercive redistribution. Nozick seems to have a greater fear of this than Rawls. Rawls sees his redistribution as resulting from prior agreements and in a non-violent and non-coercive manner.

Nozick believes that justice in holdings is historical and depends on what has actually happened. Injustice in past holdings is an issue that he approaches as well. Redistribution of holdings could be considered just if it is a rectification of a past injustice. This introduces another of the core differences in the two men’s philosophies. Nozick approaches the idea of distributive justice from a historical point of view. The current position of individuals is justified by the legitimate acquisitions and transactions of the past. Rawls looks at distributive justice from a “current-time slice” point of view. The current position of individuals is all that matters. Any redistribution that can help make the worst off better is considered and could be considered justified.

Nozick’s entitlement theory may not be fully adequate when explaining why a person is more deserving than another for getting more goods or social status but it is a better explanation than Rawls gives. What claim can an individual make under Rawls philosophy to be more “deserving” than another? That he has more urgent need or a more significant need? Individuals made the original acquisitions and voluntary transfers and these individuals have a legitimate entitlement to the goods that I do not think should be overridden. Rawls theory faces the problem that it would be difficult to get a well-off person to accept that he should have less in order to help the worst-off segment. On what basis is worthiness decided? Rawls might say, urgency of need and significance of need.

Nozick comments on the concept of patterning. Where the distribution is a society is hypothetically composed by patterned distributions (such as by IQ). Nozick’s entitlement theory is not a patterned system due to liberty – which allows freedom in transaction. Rawls end-state ideas may require constant governmental intervention to maintain the specific pattern that is (perhaps arbitrarily) considered to be preferable. Nozick diminishes the importance that Rawls puts on the worst-off segment of society. Nozick also criticizes Rawls tendency to group individuals into social classes when an individual in the “original position” would not be concerned about groups but about himself.

Comparing the two philosophers to the current Canadian stance we can see that with progressive tax rates Canadian law has adopted a philosophy that may be agreeable with Rawls. Wealthy citizens have a smaller need with each marginal increase in wealth; thus, a dollar to a poor person means more than another dollar to a wealthy person. With this in mind, Canadian law attempts to redistribute wealth with significance in mind.
From an economic point of view, Nozick holds a more persuasive position. His theories are in line with modern economic thinking, namely that the free operation of the market will lead to the greatest amount of wealth in society and that transactions arising from liberty are justified. However, Rawls current-time slice view is ideal in helping all members of a society enjoy life. It is fully in line with Kantian deontological ethics.

However, I argue, with economic theory in mind, that a redistribution of wealth under Rawls principles will do more harm than good for society because it violates an individual’s right to property and reduces private incentive to create more utility. Nozick holds the position that has the least issues even if it may not be compatible with many notions of justice as it may not adequately treat everyone as moral equals. I believe that the entitlement theory is a better alternative than the insecure contract Rawls proposes.

Isaac Snow
Distributing this paper justly from Kelowna, BC
September 2013

Further Reading: 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/